Being ridiculous doesn't make your dislike of the argument sound wise... quite the opposite.
Despite your sarcasm, the case against direct democracy does not imply that anyone thinks constitutional amendments should require only a simple majority from the legislature.
You're successfully arguing against something no one proposes.
I'm ridiculing the authors' motivated reasoning. Their actual belief is that only the anointed should make decisions, and hoi polloi allowed no voice, and they are prepared to cherry pick evidence to make whatever argument they need to make in specific cases. I'm actually not unsympathetic to this view, but we might disagree on who the anointed ought to be.
Pretty much the standard for Alberta posts here at The Line. Fortunately comments, being briefer than posts, can be hosted by a more lenient standard. Especially replies to comments.
The hoi polloi should be the pool from which the representatives are selected. But after that, the representatives should be making the decisions, except for something foundational like a referendum on whether we remain or leave a federation. See my post below.
Mark, you start with, "The hoi polloi should be the pool from which the representatives are selected ..."
That sounds good but, well, that is simply not the case. Allow me to ask of you two questions to illustrate my statement. Question 1: What proportion are lawyers to the population as a whole? Question 2: What proportion are lawyers to all sitting Members of Parliament?
I don't need to go to Google to get the specific answers to know that lawyers are incredibly over represented in Parliament. My point - without wishing to slam lawyers - is that the hoi polloi are dramatically under represented in our government.
No great surprise to read such a comment. The typical “we can’t let the elites decide for us” cry from the right. The fact that we vote for our representatives, making such people our delegates, not our masters, seems to elude many.
The two authors of this piece are absolutely bang on. Direct democracy will always be a disaster and should be avoided except in very unusual circumstances, such as constitutional change.
Recall of representatives is also a waste of time for all the reasons provided. Probably the best argument against a special recall process is that we already have one. It’s called an election.
There’s a big difference between being anointed and being elected. The “hoi poloi”—or constituents, as some might prefer to call them—have a voice and a choice regarding who will represent their interests.
They didn't run on secession if elected, so they had no mandate to do so. Even if they had, 41% of the vote isn't much to lean on. Finally, the federal government is ALSO the legitimate government of Quebecers, and the representatives Quebecers elected to Parliament were federalists.
So we've arbitrarily moved the goalposts on provincial succession to "run explicitly on succession at both the provincial and federal level and win a majority of seats in both with over 50% of the popular vote"?
I think we finally found something more practically impossible than amending the constitution.
The goalposts haven't moved. We don't even know where the goalposts are. There's nothing in the British North America Act or the 1982 Constitution giving a province the right to secede, so any government trying to act on it is groping in the dark. However, you seem to be saying that a provincial government intent on separation should be able to us where the goalposts are and that we have to accept that despite unclear jurisdiction. No. That's a BS argument, just like the argument that Quebec has been "left out of the Constitution" despite their elected representatives voting for it as part of the federal government.
The bigger the impact, the greater the support you're going to need to do it. The ultimate line for politicians is do it if you dare. The voters will tell you what they think at the next election. However, there has to BE a next election. Anything that crosses that line isn't legitimate.
You're not wrong that there isn't much legal authority or framework for provincial secession in Canada.
The closest is the 1998 Supreme Court Reference which stated that a "clear majority" on a "clear question" would be sufficient for a province to enter "negotiations" about its place in the federation, but no province has the right to unilaterally secede. Basically a majority referendum win would be enough to start discussions with the federal government about leaving Canada. I'm not sure anyone knows what those negotiations would look like and ultimately it would probably come down to whether the party in power federally would be punished more in the next election for forcing the province to stay or letting it leave. Or whether the province would be willing to ignore the Supreme Court and actually declare de facto independence (with the implicit threat of a shooting war).
Quebec has played a dangerous game by accepting half of this (referendum win on "do we leave Canada y/n" = secession) and ignoring how murky it is about what actually happens when you get that 50%+ vote. Well the whole thing is a dangerous game designed at this point entirely to extract concessions from the federal government. I contend that there is very little real desire in Quebec to secede, as they get whatever they want and more by staying in Canada. They get to vote in governments that torture the rest of us for their benefit, that's for sure.
That Alberta has decided to ape these tactics in hopes of getting similar results, and might accidentally be successful at some point, is just an extension of what a dangerous game it is.
A few observations. I think the elephant in the room is Quebec. As in, Alberta wants what Quebec has.
Democracy, it is an imprecise tool. This is clearly an example of what I mean.
The authors are arguing for changes that should have happened loooooooooong ago. It's why we are here where we are today in this divided confederation. The authors should offer a mea culpa: 'You are right. These long standing issues should have been taken care of.' An aopology couldn't hurt. Carney's predecessor loved apologizing, Why weren't these long-standing structural issues successfully dealt with through ordinary representative politics before now?
The authors are defending the status quo while ignoring why, what, 20-30% of Albertans are so sick of how the province has been treated they want to leave Canada.
That is not a small number. This is not going away. The petition will not lead to an end to how those people feel. A lot of Albertans have a separation sized knot on there collective faces. These frustrations have been growing for decades. If politicians had listened earlier, the public wouldn't be demanding direct votes, petitions, and recalls today. People haven't suddenly fallen in love with direct democracy—they just believe the current system won't fix their problems unless it is forced to.
They will lose the vote but they will not be going away and I suspect the next attempt will be far better organized, communicated and led.
The authors should be asked: why propose these things now? For 20-30% of the population it is too little too late.
Quebec's approach has been disastrous for Quebec. The argument for Alberta to be able to adopt that approach is like begging for permission to get a full face tattoo because somebody else got one. The guy with the full face tattoo has discovered he's nearly unemployable and has been trying to get it removed so he can return to a normal life, but you want one too because it just looked SO COOL?
Sean, you offer two particular comments in your third paragraph: "The authors are arguing for changes that should have happened loooooooooong ago." and "Why weren't these long-standing structural issues successfully dealt with through ordinary representative politics before now?"
Both a reasonable comment and a reasonable question. My response, as an Albertan who will vote for departure, to your question: The issues were not dealt with because it was not to the benefit of a group of people who have chosen to keep Canada as it has been and the constitution is so constructed as to make amendment impossible. So, your ball, your rules, I decline to play your game further Mesdames and Messieurs Laurentians.
Arguing against direct democracy and using 'monetary policy' and 'cybersecurity regulation' as examples for why it's too complex for dumb citizens to understand is more straw-man than argument. The logic could easily be extended to general election campaigns. How can an individual citizen possibly be capable of weighing all the intricate problems a government will face over the course of its term? Silly people. Go home, play Xbox, and let the grown-ups make decisions for you.
It seems entirely appropriate to utilize direct democracy to seek a mandate on specific questions, like "should Canada change its voting system" or "should Alberta remain in Canada". Yeah, they're divisive - so are governments. Democracy has flaws. We deal with them because allowing/facilitating democratic anger is better than pretending it doesn't exist.
It's also breathtakingly ignorant of the elitism that typified 2000s politics that, simplistically, led to today's populism. Reacting to today's anger-populism characterized by backlash to elites by essentially arguing that average people should play a smaller role in government and decision-making and elites should be MORE isolated is... interesting? Foolish is a better word.
Also: "should adopt stricter rules for who should be allowed to run for leader as well as rules for who should be allowed to select and remove that leader. Delegated conventions provide a greater opportunity to vet those in the room, as well as those at the front of the room" -- who's adjudicating those rules? Who's vetting those in the room? What's your criteria? Education? Ideology?
Would you be comfortable giving Danielle Smith that kind of power and authority? Or is your plan to just ensure someone like her never makes it that far? Certainly worked out well in the past, history is filled with examples of successful, insular, undemocratic institutions having long-term success and stability and never leading to massive, revolutionary breakdowns.
I'd be more impressed by the argument that ordinary voters are capable of weighing in on complex issues if ordinary citizens actually demonstrated an interest in learning enough about the issues to make an informed choice. The fact is that most MPs don't know enough about these issues to do it either, and that's their job. What they do is form committees, solicit input from actual experts and stakeholders, and hopefully use that as the basis for their decisions.
The argument is just inconsistent and bad. The authors are fine if it’s people they like/trust in charge, but provide no indication as to how those people are chosen EXCEPT by somehow keeping out people they don’t like. How do you do that in a consistent and principled basis.
Yes, people are limited. We’re democratic for legitimacy, not expertise.
Does that mean bad decisions? Absolutely. Assuming elites are infallible is equally silly.
Direct democracy also doesn’t necessarily contemplate radical democracy where everything is subject to a vote. But criticizing AB’s regime because, in 5 years, it hasn’t worked perfectly or to the satisfaction of the authors and that means direct democracy is ALWAYS a bad idea is just dumb.
Show me a place where this approach HAS actually worked well and delivered good results in a western liberal democracy. *Maybe* you can make a case for Switzerland, although that's a special case of an electorate composed of Swiss people. Talk to the Swiss, and they'll echo the same concerns outlined here: an approach poorly suited to complex policy challenges, and the potential for populist sentiment overrunning rational decision making. Or is this a case that like Communism, repeated failures simply mean true direct democracy has never been tried?
No, that’s not my burden. I’m not advocating radical democracy, nor am I required to provide a “perfect” example or otherwise concede the authors are correct.
I’m simply pointing out that the article amounts to “more power to elites, less involvement from people” because people are too dumb to comprehend complex issues. Again, that’s an argument that can be applied to literally anything where the decision maker is not a subject matter expert. It’s dumb. It’s also ignorant of the cause of major division today, which is elites who thought people were too dumb to make complex decisions.
Also, I can throw out meaningless hypotheticals as well - show me an example where a DEMOCRACY has worked out perfectly. Can’t do it, can ya? Canada? Ask indigenous peoples how democracy worked for them. America? See Trump, Donald, but also slavery. England? Colonialism. France? Revolution, war, monarchy, revolution. Germany? AfD, Weimar. It’s a bad argument but hey, it’s simple and catchy.
But in any event, Switzerland is a great example (though you’re correct that it’s good for the Swiss, not necessarily transferable - I assume your argument is not, though, that Canadians or Albertans couldn’t make something work). Many (most?) US states also allow for proposition voting. It works pretty well.
There is a third way that incorporates the elements of what you're looking for (average guy input) without losing the benefits of representative democracy as described by the author. See my post above.
If you had true democracy in the candidate selection process - such as selection via US style primaries open to all - maybe there would be less need for direct democracy initiatives. Secret choices by oligarchs - family connections etc such as is the case now with suppression of any candidates who refuse to kowtow to the establishment - make a mockery of the pretense that elected provincial or federal representatives and be extension appointed civil servants represent the people and honor their wishes.
The article is a defense of the top down we-know-better that the great unwashed system of government in Canada. As someone said a few years ago, a slave that gets to choose its master every four years is still a slave. As the song goes “Meet the new boss - same as the old boss”.
I’ve participated in three of them. Yes they can be pretty “robust” at times. But in the end the results are usually pretty conventional. And people are generally satisfied even if they didn’t win because everyone got a say and it was all in the open. Completely different from the Canadian process where the Candidate selection is mostly done in secret by the party and its leaders. For instance Doug Ford appointed 8? 12? Candidates in the last Ontario elections. No wonder Canadians feel the Government never listens to them.
The US political class is if anything more beholden to family connections and relationships than the Canadian one. Did you notice Darline Graham, sister of recently deceased Senator Lindsay Graham being appointed to fill his seat AND receive the Republican nomination for the upcoming election despite never having run for political office or even having any relevant experience? That's just one example. You can point to the Canadian example of Pierre and Justin Trudeau, but such examples are few and far between compared to the incestuous US system.
Primary elections have been disastrous for US politics. They attract the most extreme elements of the base to select candidates in what are always low turnout elections, and those people hate their own parties. In the highly gerrymandered and politically sorted US districts, that means that elected officials are selected by the angriest, craziest people demanding the most extreme policies. The effect of that shows in their highly dysfunctional and incredibly partisan governments.
And yes - having nominations controlled by parties does mean that parties aren't going to allow candidates who run against the party line. That's the whole point: the party's reason for being is to win power, and they have to decide who are the best people to do that while representing their party's values. Donald Trump wouldn't have become the Republican nominee with a strong party system, and everybody would be better off for it. Likewise, Democratic Socialists wouldn't be staging a coup for control of the Democrats to impose their extreme left wing agenda against a stronger party establishment.
Want to influence a party and politics? Get involved. Show up to riding association meetings. Persuade people. What you're talking about sounds like sour grapes from somebody who doesn't understand that the democratic politics means actually winning the argument.
I would take out “the argument” from the final in your post. And I’ve been a worker bee for political parties both in Canada and then the US after I gained my freedom.
There are family connections yes. And I would hazard a guess that it’s the same all over the world. As an example I’m thinking of the Desmarais Family in the Quebec nation who were reported as having a piece of and connections with Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and the Trudeaus among others.
You missed the Kennedys who were the US equivalent of Canada’s Laurentian elite. And the Bushes came from the same old money eastern elites. Trump was chosen because he was perceived to be a winner even though many were put off by his tactics.
The beauty of the US Primary process is that everyone gets an opportunity to participate and gets their views heard regardless of whether they are considered beyond the pale by the pearl clutchers in the mainstream and the mass media. This acts as a safety valve and is far better IMO where in Canada, beyond attending protests totally ignored by the Government and bureaucrats, the only real way to protest is to go to guns at a synagogue in Belleville recently or a mosque in Quebec. Or you can run for a party leadership in Canada and get bounced and get your $300K entry fee stolen by the party because you expressed your opinion in the past.
I'm looking at the effects of the US primary system, and they've been terrible. A system can look lovely in theory, but end up being disastrous when put into practice.
I finally found your response below. Some good points.
I believe that gaining a large part of your knowledge by discussion with your colleagues is a recipe for disaster and/or stagnation . When your colleagues are all selected by a small elite group of oligarchs as is the case in Canada the odds of progressing or achieving breakthroughs are drastically reduced. The quote about the “broader public good” is fine except who defines what that is. In an oligarchy I would submit that the broader public good gets defined as that which enriches and maintains the power of those who selected them via the closed loop major party candidate selection process.
Everyone brings their own knowledge to the table, but when the topic is outside their own field of expertise, they're going to need to gain knowledge from elsewhere, presumably from experts, and there is still the matter of deliberating to decide which experts are to be believed. That's how democracy is supposed to work. The issue is how to choose the representatives who do the deliberating and make the decisions.
I couldn't agree more with Wesley and Boessenkool. Direct democracy has a long and far-from-admirable history in the US, and in Alberta we're seeming similar results. People can't seem to think down the road very well, so become dissatisfied with representative democracy because they can only pass judgment on,and therefore strongly influence, what government is doing about every 4 years. But conservative governments, and conservative-minded voters in particular, should be mindful that changes need time to be fully appreciated. I may be pissed about something that my government is doing, but perhaps a couple of years from now I'll see that it was for the best overall. Direct democracy subverts this necessary evaluative process. The 4 year requirement in representative democracy is a feature not a bug.
I agree with pretty much everything stated here. Certainly this referendum is NOT a form of direct democracy, it is manufactured consent. These questions have not come from the people but from the small cabal in the Premier’s office led by Rob Anderson. Albertans not paying attention will be hoodwinked. Unfortunately, resentfully, we have to play along otherwise the real danger exists that these outrageous queries will pass. One thing I disagree with Mr.Wesley about is a form of proportional representation is really what we need. In former correspondence Mr. Wesley points to the rise of the radial right in European democracies where PR has given them a foothold in the power structure. But the other side of that is continued disenfranchisement of people like me who never feel represented. I think these extreme parties rise to prominence due to low voter turnout out of complacency. A good solution to that is mandatory voting like in Australia. Whatever the solution, clearly direct democracy is not it. Too easy to manipulate, to easy to lose the benefit of deliberation and compromise when complex issues get reduced to a binary choice. Democracy is slow and plodding and that’s a feature, not a bug.
Alberta Conservative politics started going wonky with the first 3 way leadership runoff in 2005. Now the party is dominated by angry anti-vaxxers who have become angry separatists. The UCP is breaking up and the NDP will win the next election.
I think this misses the mark, somewhat. In general, I oppose direct democracy because I think it yields inferior policy results to representative democracy.
When it comes to changes to the fundamental governance structures of a society, however, the case changes. In that situation, the members of a polity should be allowed a greater degree of direct control. On the other hand, if we're throwing representative democracy out for a question, we shouldn't assume that the rules around elections for representative democracy continue to apply unchanged.
For example, direct democracy seems to require specific proposals. A referendum on the Charlestown Accord for example is a concrete proposal that voters can give a Yes/No answer to. In the context of an independence referendum, I don't think it makes sense to treat it as meaningful unless it is a direct Yes/No on the fully spelled out proposal - after negotiating the legal text of required legislation and agreements with Canada, aboriginal groups, and anyone else with whom negotiations are necessary. A vote to separate is meaningless when separated from a concrete, specific proposal to separate. If it's a general mandate to do something, and the elected officials will be tasked with filling in the details, the usual representative democracy process is fine.
So for example, the Parti Quebecois could hold an independence referendum after negotiating a separation from Canada, to determine whether there was genuine public support for the separation, but one held before negotiations should be considered purely advisory. It's forcing voters to select yes/no, with no clarity about what either answer means, and where a supermajority of voters would ultimately say 'it depends' - they're just not given that opportunity. The ambiguity inherent in that approach means that by definition the result doesn't have democratic legitimacy for anything in particular. We shouldn't pretend that it does.
In pushing for representative democracy, please use your platform to push proportional representation.
With proportional representation separatists in Alberta would be sectioned into their own rump party and held to real scrutiny in a legislature not beholding to them.
Not as a generalization, but the problem is when you have "those people" who clearly aren't representative of the population having the leverage to influence government.
The best way the ensure that a body is representative is to select it by random selection according to the principles of basic statistics. See my post above.
I'm in BC, but it seems to me that it's been obvious for a LONG time that the UCP was strongly influenced and to some extent controlled by what some might wish to call the "fringe" of the Albertan political perspective.
And if it's been obvious to me, then it should have been obvious to the median Albertan voter. If you voted UCP and are surprised that "those people" have leverage on the government... well I don't know what to say. It's like voting for the federal Conservatives and being surprised that the people who want to shutdown the CBC have a lot of influence.
As for random selection, there's no reason to take that idea seriously. You're not talking about democracy at that point or even expertise.
And it may interest you to know that random selection is what was practiced by the Athenians a few centuries BC. You know, where democracy (a Greek word) was invented (as far as we know). And Aristotle asserted that it was common knowledge that random selection (he used the Greek word for lot, I think) produced democracy and elections produced oligarchy.
As for expertise, there's a great deal empirical evidence that shows that a sufficient number of non-experts can arrive at a better solution that just a few "experts". See books by Helene Landemore or search "the wisdom of crowds".
As if any but a few parliamentarians of any age have been experts, and yet we treat them as if they are. Nowadays they're more like trained seals who won a beauty contest. We can do better with random people, at the very least because they won't have anybody to kowtow to for getting them elected or any ability to influence their re-election.
Random people take jury duty seriously (I've served). They'd do the same if given the chance at parliament.
This isn't theoretical concept, it's being used in various places around the world. Look up "sortition". There's lots to read about it.
Well said. I used to be in favour of “one member, one vote” leadership campaigns, recall and citizen initiative, but I have seen how those processes are used by small groups of partisans or ideologues to further their own agenda. I would like to see a return of the strong parties that exercise political hygiene within their parties instead of the weak parties we have now that are easily taken over by the motivated extremists or personality cultists.
When politicians are elected, the only mandate they've actually got is to hold that office for 4-5 years until the next election. At that point voters get to decide whether they're happy with that politician's performance, or whether to toss them out and elect somebody else instead. That's it. If you ask 1000 voters why they voted for a specific candidate, you'll get 1000 different reasons, and really only a fog of consensus that might be construed as a mandate for something specific.
Referendums and direct democracy superficially appear to deliver a more definitive mandate, but reality shows that they're just as imprecise and subject to a similar fog of interpretations and rationales. The "Leave" side eked out a slight majority in the Brexit referendum, but promised all sorts of benefits that never materialized. Would they still have won if voters knew that they couldn't deliver?
Even worse are referendum questions that are vague or imprecise, like Quebec's 1995 referendum question "Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?" Jacques Parizeau was going to treat a "Yes" vote as justification for immediate, unilateral secession. That's not how a lot of people were reading it.
So how do politicians know what the limits are when they're elected? Well, for one thing there's the law and the Constitution. For another, they usually only represent one level of government - they don't necessarily have an exclusive say in the matter. In the end, though, they can do it if they dare. The voters will get their say in the next election, and the Constitution guarantees there WILL be a next election.
An overdue article in the midst of a chaotic time with an excellent explanation of what this referendum is and what it isn't. I would add 2 things. Our legislature meets 34 days this year . There is very little debate , orders in council are how we are being ruled by non- elected officials. There is a move to replace the importance of elected MLAs by the "direct" democracy . The cost is outrageous with a missing component - the province is spending 4 million to plead their case whereas there are no matching funds to support the NO side - just private funds.
A substantial number of Albertans of many political stripes, are not satisfied that successive federal governments have served their interests. History since the mid-1960s has repeatedly demonstrated that Alberta votes simply don't matter in federal elections and representative democracy has not delivered what many Albertans want and (I suspect) see other Provinces getting. "Representative democracy' can deliver even handed, responsible government but there's considerable evidence it listens to and rewards its supporters. Representative democracy rewards "voter efficency" and continues to permit Party's to hold office with a minority of the "popular vote" and parties with a majority of the voters support to serve in Opposition.
This frustration helps explain Alberta's resort to direct democracy. Quebec has used it and the threat of direct democracy, quite effectively over the last several decades. Perhaps it's coincidence, a function of Trump, the price of oil or where the PM was born, but this federal government has been more attentive and supportive of Alberta's ambitions following the Province's resort to direct democracy.
I agree with direct democracy being mostly unworkable and in this case highly impractical except for the fact that all government parties never seem to purge their own ranks of people that in the past would have been forced to resign. If my MLA is acting like a Canadian Senator being invisible in their riding or caught in flagrante delicto there needs to be a mechanism for their removal.
While I get the arguments Jared and Ken are making about this specific Alberta referendum, I disagree with their wider point that direct democracy in Alberta and Canada are a failure.
Direct democracy actually has a history in Alberta. There used to be an understanding of the distinction between a plebiscite (which is a non-binding citizen direct vote, the results of which allows a sitting government to gauge citizen opinion on a topic) and a referendum (which until recently was a binding citizen direct vote on a subject that obligated a sitting government to act on the results). Today, for some reason, we have this strange concept of a 'non-binding referendum' which should more correctly be termed a plebiscite.
I completely agree that the current practice of the sitting government cooking up the wording of the questions, whether they be citizen-originated or from the government itself, has been a disaster - hopelessly politicizing specific yet complex issues with questions that lean the voter to the preferred outcome of the government in power.
I also agree that the bar should be high for a citizen-initiated direct democracy questions. I disagree that citizens should not have the ability to initiate a question. Yes, the required signatures should be a high number, and the question citizens are seeking to have answered should pass legal muster before it is put to a provincial vote, but the process should still exist.
I am less enthused about continuing the current practice of questions cooked up by the government themselves. The current glob of loaded questions is adequately covered by the article, and I largely concur with Ken and Jared's analysis.
The 2026 loaded questions, however, have a fairly recent precedent in this UCP government chicanery in so-called direct democracy. The 2021 referendum on permanent DST is a great example of a government loading their question to favour their preferred outcome. The vote yielded an extremely narrow 'no' to year-round DST, disappointing the UCP (and those that wanted year-round DST to happen). Voters opposed to full-time DST had only one option, and that was the status quo of continuing the twice yearly time change, because the *actual preferred option* of 'no' voters was to do away with DST altogether, and return us to the pre-1971 practice of full time Mountain Standard Time. This option, of course, was quite intentionally not included in the 2021 referendum question.
The government's response to the 2021 DST vote has been to ram through permanent DST without the messiness of creating a new referendum question. This top-down government-knows-best approach would appear to be Jared and Ken's preferred option; I personally would have appreciated a referendum question that provided three options: permanent DST, permanent MST, or no change. It will remain to be seen if, as other jurisdictions historically have learned, that full time DST is not the great thing it was thought to be (look it up, it's interesting).
To wrap this comment up - I think there is still a place for direct democracy in Alberta, but the process needs a complete rethink. It should be an all-party committee that reviews any question, and this committee should not be weighted in favour of the sitting government. The review committee should also have independent legal analysis, and of course indigenous review where appropriate constitutionally. There should be a clear distinction (and perhaps public and MLA education) on the difference between a plebiscite (non-binding) and a referendum (binding). It can work, as it has worked elsewhere in the world; we just need to adopt better practices.
I do find it ironic that the only measure adopted from this 7 year mess of direct democracy (plebiscite is the correct term) is the one on DST defeated at the polls during Kenney's regime? And yes permanent MST should have been an option.
I recall from very early in my childhood that questions on DST and water fluoridation seemed to show up as plebiscites at every tri-annual municipal election.
Limited use of citizen sponsored plebiscites on such issues, makes sense, the idea that enough (small group of) people sign a petition we can have a vote to call Tuesday Thursday is insane!
"Modern government also requires expertise and informed deliberation. It is simply not possible for a single individual, never mind every voter, to know the intricacies of subjects like cybersecurity regulation and monetary policy, let alone the interaction between these things. We need those same legislators, bureaucrats and semi-governmental bodies to dedicate their careers to not just understanding the nuances of complex issues, but also deciding which issues need attention right now."
This column and more is exactly what a lot of people need to read.
Representative democracy means representatives doing what the people would do if they had sufficient information, time, ability and inclination to do so. And a major part of finding out what that should be is discussing and deliberating with their colleagues.
"They aren’t just delegates of their base; they are trustees of the broader public good."
Exactly! Edmund Burke wrote in 1774: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
"... if you’re trying to build a credible political party."
The thing is, such a thing doesn't seem to be possible. How many years and elections have to pass before we stop the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting better results?
The real change that is needed is to replace elections with using a lottery to decide who gets to represent us. Because voting doesn’t make a democracy - representation does! And if you want a statistically representative sample of a population, you take a random sample of a sufficient size to satisfy a desired confidence level and margin of error. This is basic statistics. And getting a representative sample is the whole point of elections, right?
This is the concrete solution to the problem of party politics and the beauty pageant elections that sustains it.
The problem is that these "popular assemblies" exist in a cocoon of permanent civil servants who select "experts" to "help" the representatives in their "deliberation". Control of the information feed to representatives leads to control of the output. GIGO
Correct. It would have made far more sense for the first PQ government in Quebec to be able to secede from Canada without a referendum.
Being ridiculous doesn't make your dislike of the argument sound wise... quite the opposite.
Despite your sarcasm, the case against direct democracy does not imply that anyone thinks constitutional amendments should require only a simple majority from the legislature.
You're successfully arguing against something no one proposes.
I'm ridiculing the authors' motivated reasoning. Their actual belief is that only the anointed should make decisions, and hoi polloi allowed no voice, and they are prepared to cherry pick evidence to make whatever argument they need to make in specific cases. I'm actually not unsympathetic to this view, but we might disagree on who the anointed ought to be.
Whenever a post starts with "well what that guy ACTUALLY thinks is"... followed by a caricature, it's not a good sign.
Pretty much the standard for Alberta posts here at The Line. Fortunately comments, being briefer than posts, can be hosted by a more lenient standard. Especially replies to comments.
The hoi polloi should be the pool from which the representatives are selected. But after that, the representatives should be making the decisions, except for something foundational like a referendum on whether we remain or leave a federation. See my post below.
Mark, you start with, "The hoi polloi should be the pool from which the representatives are selected ..."
That sounds good but, well, that is simply not the case. Allow me to ask of you two questions to illustrate my statement. Question 1: What proportion are lawyers to the population as a whole? Question 2: What proportion are lawyers to all sitting Members of Parliament?
I don't need to go to Google to get the specific answers to know that lawyers are incredibly over represented in Parliament. My point - without wishing to slam lawyers - is that the hoi polloi are dramatically under represented in our government.
No great surprise to read such a comment. The typical “we can’t let the elites decide for us” cry from the right. The fact that we vote for our representatives, making such people our delegates, not our masters, seems to elude many.
The two authors of this piece are absolutely bang on. Direct democracy will always be a disaster and should be avoided except in very unusual circumstances, such as constitutional change.
Recall of representatives is also a waste of time for all the reasons provided. Probably the best argument against a special recall process is that we already have one. It’s called an election.
There’s a big difference between being anointed and being elected. The “hoi poloi”—or constituents, as some might prefer to call them—have a voice and a choice regarding who will represent their interests.
How are candidates chosen? In most cases, but the people who they actually represent: the party.
They didn't run on secession if elected, so they had no mandate to do so. Even if they had, 41% of the vote isn't much to lean on. Finally, the federal government is ALSO the legitimate government of Quebecers, and the representatives Quebecers elected to Parliament were federalists.
So we've arbitrarily moved the goalposts on provincial succession to "run explicitly on succession at both the provincial and federal level and win a majority of seats in both with over 50% of the popular vote"?
I think we finally found something more practically impossible than amending the constitution.
The goalposts haven't moved. We don't even know where the goalposts are. There's nothing in the British North America Act or the 1982 Constitution giving a province the right to secede, so any government trying to act on it is groping in the dark. However, you seem to be saying that a provincial government intent on separation should be able to us where the goalposts are and that we have to accept that despite unclear jurisdiction. No. That's a BS argument, just like the argument that Quebec has been "left out of the Constitution" despite their elected representatives voting for it as part of the federal government.
The bigger the impact, the greater the support you're going to need to do it. The ultimate line for politicians is do it if you dare. The voters will tell you what they think at the next election. However, there has to BE a next election. Anything that crosses that line isn't legitimate.
You're not wrong that there isn't much legal authority or framework for provincial secession in Canada.
The closest is the 1998 Supreme Court Reference which stated that a "clear majority" on a "clear question" would be sufficient for a province to enter "negotiations" about its place in the federation, but no province has the right to unilaterally secede. Basically a majority referendum win would be enough to start discussions with the federal government about leaving Canada. I'm not sure anyone knows what those negotiations would look like and ultimately it would probably come down to whether the party in power federally would be punished more in the next election for forcing the province to stay or letting it leave. Or whether the province would be willing to ignore the Supreme Court and actually declare de facto independence (with the implicit threat of a shooting war).
Quebec has played a dangerous game by accepting half of this (referendum win on "do we leave Canada y/n" = secession) and ignoring how murky it is about what actually happens when you get that 50%+ vote. Well the whole thing is a dangerous game designed at this point entirely to extract concessions from the federal government. I contend that there is very little real desire in Quebec to secede, as they get whatever they want and more by staying in Canada. They get to vote in governments that torture the rest of us for their benefit, that's for sure.
That Alberta has decided to ape these tactics in hopes of getting similar results, and might accidentally be successful at some point, is just an extension of what a dangerous game it is.
I see what you did there!
👏👏👏
A few observations. I think the elephant in the room is Quebec. As in, Alberta wants what Quebec has.
Democracy, it is an imprecise tool. This is clearly an example of what I mean.
The authors are arguing for changes that should have happened loooooooooong ago. It's why we are here where we are today in this divided confederation. The authors should offer a mea culpa: 'You are right. These long standing issues should have been taken care of.' An aopology couldn't hurt. Carney's predecessor loved apologizing, Why weren't these long-standing structural issues successfully dealt with through ordinary representative politics before now?
The authors are defending the status quo while ignoring why, what, 20-30% of Albertans are so sick of how the province has been treated they want to leave Canada.
That is not a small number. This is not going away. The petition will not lead to an end to how those people feel. A lot of Albertans have a separation sized knot on there collective faces. These frustrations have been growing for decades. If politicians had listened earlier, the public wouldn't be demanding direct votes, petitions, and recalls today. People haven't suddenly fallen in love with direct democracy—they just believe the current system won't fix their problems unless it is forced to.
They will lose the vote but they will not be going away and I suspect the next attempt will be far better organized, communicated and led.
The authors should be asked: why propose these things now? For 20-30% of the population it is too little too late.
Canada will change or it will be changed.
Quebec's approach has been disastrous for Quebec. The argument for Alberta to be able to adopt that approach is like begging for permission to get a full face tattoo because somebody else got one. The guy with the full face tattoo has discovered he's nearly unemployable and has been trying to get it removed so he can return to a normal life, but you want one too because it just looked SO COOL?
Tattoo?
Sean, you offer two particular comments in your third paragraph: "The authors are arguing for changes that should have happened loooooooooong ago." and "Why weren't these long-standing structural issues successfully dealt with through ordinary representative politics before now?"
Both a reasonable comment and a reasonable question. My response, as an Albertan who will vote for departure, to your question: The issues were not dealt with because it was not to the benefit of a group of people who have chosen to keep Canada as it has been and the constitution is so constructed as to make amendment impossible. So, your ball, your rules, I decline to play your game further Mesdames and Messieurs Laurentians.
This is a little asinine.
Arguing against direct democracy and using 'monetary policy' and 'cybersecurity regulation' as examples for why it's too complex for dumb citizens to understand is more straw-man than argument. The logic could easily be extended to general election campaigns. How can an individual citizen possibly be capable of weighing all the intricate problems a government will face over the course of its term? Silly people. Go home, play Xbox, and let the grown-ups make decisions for you.
It seems entirely appropriate to utilize direct democracy to seek a mandate on specific questions, like "should Canada change its voting system" or "should Alberta remain in Canada". Yeah, they're divisive - so are governments. Democracy has flaws. We deal with them because allowing/facilitating democratic anger is better than pretending it doesn't exist.
It's also breathtakingly ignorant of the elitism that typified 2000s politics that, simplistically, led to today's populism. Reacting to today's anger-populism characterized by backlash to elites by essentially arguing that average people should play a smaller role in government and decision-making and elites should be MORE isolated is... interesting? Foolish is a better word.
Also: "should adopt stricter rules for who should be allowed to run for leader as well as rules for who should be allowed to select and remove that leader. Delegated conventions provide a greater opportunity to vet those in the room, as well as those at the front of the room" -- who's adjudicating those rules? Who's vetting those in the room? What's your criteria? Education? Ideology?
Would you be comfortable giving Danielle Smith that kind of power and authority? Or is your plan to just ensure someone like her never makes it that far? Certainly worked out well in the past, history is filled with examples of successful, insular, undemocratic institutions having long-term success and stability and never leading to massive, revolutionary breakdowns.
Good work guys!
I'd be more impressed by the argument that ordinary voters are capable of weighing in on complex issues if ordinary citizens actually demonstrated an interest in learning enough about the issues to make an informed choice. The fact is that most MPs don't know enough about these issues to do it either, and that's their job. What they do is form committees, solicit input from actual experts and stakeholders, and hopefully use that as the basis for their decisions.
The argument is just inconsistent and bad. The authors are fine if it’s people they like/trust in charge, but provide no indication as to how those people are chosen EXCEPT by somehow keeping out people they don’t like. How do you do that in a consistent and principled basis.
Yes, people are limited. We’re democratic for legitimacy, not expertise.
Does that mean bad decisions? Absolutely. Assuming elites are infallible is equally silly.
Direct democracy also doesn’t necessarily contemplate radical democracy where everything is subject to a vote. But criticizing AB’s regime because, in 5 years, it hasn’t worked perfectly or to the satisfaction of the authors and that means direct democracy is ALWAYS a bad idea is just dumb.
Show me a place where this approach HAS actually worked well and delivered good results in a western liberal democracy. *Maybe* you can make a case for Switzerland, although that's a special case of an electorate composed of Swiss people. Talk to the Swiss, and they'll echo the same concerns outlined here: an approach poorly suited to complex policy challenges, and the potential for populist sentiment overrunning rational decision making. Or is this a case that like Communism, repeated failures simply mean true direct democracy has never been tried?
No, that’s not my burden. I’m not advocating radical democracy, nor am I required to provide a “perfect” example or otherwise concede the authors are correct.
I’m simply pointing out that the article amounts to “more power to elites, less involvement from people” because people are too dumb to comprehend complex issues. Again, that’s an argument that can be applied to literally anything where the decision maker is not a subject matter expert. It’s dumb. It’s also ignorant of the cause of major division today, which is elites who thought people were too dumb to make complex decisions.
Also, I can throw out meaningless hypotheticals as well - show me an example where a DEMOCRACY has worked out perfectly. Can’t do it, can ya? Canada? Ask indigenous peoples how democracy worked for them. America? See Trump, Donald, but also slavery. England? Colonialism. France? Revolution, war, monarchy, revolution. Germany? AfD, Weimar. It’s a bad argument but hey, it’s simple and catchy.
But in any event, Switzerland is a great example (though you’re correct that it’s good for the Swiss, not necessarily transferable - I assume your argument is not, though, that Canadians or Albertans couldn’t make something work). Many (most?) US states also allow for proposition voting. It works pretty well.
There is a third way that incorporates the elements of what you're looking for (average guy input) without losing the benefits of representative democracy as described by the author. See my post above.
If you had true democracy in the candidate selection process - such as selection via US style primaries open to all - maybe there would be less need for direct democracy initiatives. Secret choices by oligarchs - family connections etc such as is the case now with suppression of any candidates who refuse to kowtow to the establishment - make a mockery of the pretense that elected provincial or federal representatives and be extension appointed civil servants represent the people and honor their wishes.
The article is a defense of the top down we-know-better that the great unwashed system of government in Canada. As someone said a few years ago, a slave that gets to choose its master every four years is still a slave. As the song goes “Meet the new boss - same as the old boss”.
I’ve participated in three of them. Yes they can be pretty “robust” at times. But in the end the results are usually pretty conventional. And people are generally satisfied even if they didn’t win because everyone got a say and it was all in the open. Completely different from the Canadian process where the Candidate selection is mostly done in secret by the party and its leaders. For instance Doug Ford appointed 8? 12? Candidates in the last Ontario elections. No wonder Canadians feel the Government never listens to them.
The US political class is if anything more beholden to family connections and relationships than the Canadian one. Did you notice Darline Graham, sister of recently deceased Senator Lindsay Graham being appointed to fill his seat AND receive the Republican nomination for the upcoming election despite never having run for political office or even having any relevant experience? That's just one example. You can point to the Canadian example of Pierre and Justin Trudeau, but such examples are few and far between compared to the incestuous US system.
Primary elections have been disastrous for US politics. They attract the most extreme elements of the base to select candidates in what are always low turnout elections, and those people hate their own parties. In the highly gerrymandered and politically sorted US districts, that means that elected officials are selected by the angriest, craziest people demanding the most extreme policies. The effect of that shows in their highly dysfunctional and incredibly partisan governments.
And yes - having nominations controlled by parties does mean that parties aren't going to allow candidates who run against the party line. That's the whole point: the party's reason for being is to win power, and they have to decide who are the best people to do that while representing their party's values. Donald Trump wouldn't have become the Republican nominee with a strong party system, and everybody would be better off for it. Likewise, Democratic Socialists wouldn't be staging a coup for control of the Democrats to impose their extreme left wing agenda against a stronger party establishment.
Want to influence a party and politics? Get involved. Show up to riding association meetings. Persuade people. What you're talking about sounds like sour grapes from somebody who doesn't understand that the democratic politics means actually winning the argument.
I would take out “the argument” from the final in your post. And I’ve been a worker bee for political parties both in Canada and then the US after I gained my freedom.
There are family connections yes. And I would hazard a guess that it’s the same all over the world. As an example I’m thinking of the Desmarais Family in the Quebec nation who were reported as having a piece of and connections with Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and the Trudeaus among others.
You missed the Kennedys who were the US equivalent of Canada’s Laurentian elite. And the Bushes came from the same old money eastern elites. Trump was chosen because he was perceived to be a winner even though many were put off by his tactics.
The beauty of the US Primary process is that everyone gets an opportunity to participate and gets their views heard regardless of whether they are considered beyond the pale by the pearl clutchers in the mainstream and the mass media. This acts as a safety valve and is far better IMO where in Canada, beyond attending protests totally ignored by the Government and bureaucrats, the only real way to protest is to go to guns at a synagogue in Belleville recently or a mosque in Quebec. Or you can run for a party leadership in Canada and get bounced and get your $300K entry fee stolen by the party because you expressed your opinion in the past.
I'm looking at the effects of the US primary system, and they've been terrible. A system can look lovely in theory, but end up being disastrous when put into practice.
Representation doesn't have to be that way. See my response above.
I finally found your response below. Some good points.
I believe that gaining a large part of your knowledge by discussion with your colleagues is a recipe for disaster and/or stagnation . When your colleagues are all selected by a small elite group of oligarchs as is the case in Canada the odds of progressing or achieving breakthroughs are drastically reduced. The quote about the “broader public good” is fine except who defines what that is. In an oligarchy I would submit that the broader public good gets defined as that which enriches and maintains the power of those who selected them via the closed loop major party candidate selection process.
Everyone brings their own knowledge to the table, but when the topic is outside their own field of expertise, they're going to need to gain knowledge from elsewhere, presumably from experts, and there is still the matter of deliberating to decide which experts are to be believed. That's how democracy is supposed to work. The issue is how to choose the representatives who do the deliberating and make the decisions.
I couldn't agree more with Wesley and Boessenkool. Direct democracy has a long and far-from-admirable history in the US, and in Alberta we're seeming similar results. People can't seem to think down the road very well, so become dissatisfied with representative democracy because they can only pass judgment on,and therefore strongly influence, what government is doing about every 4 years. But conservative governments, and conservative-minded voters in particular, should be mindful that changes need time to be fully appreciated. I may be pissed about something that my government is doing, but perhaps a couple of years from now I'll see that it was for the best overall. Direct democracy subverts this necessary evaluative process. The 4 year requirement in representative democracy is a feature not a bug.
I agree with pretty much everything stated here. Certainly this referendum is NOT a form of direct democracy, it is manufactured consent. These questions have not come from the people but from the small cabal in the Premier’s office led by Rob Anderson. Albertans not paying attention will be hoodwinked. Unfortunately, resentfully, we have to play along otherwise the real danger exists that these outrageous queries will pass. One thing I disagree with Mr.Wesley about is a form of proportional representation is really what we need. In former correspondence Mr. Wesley points to the rise of the radial right in European democracies where PR has given them a foothold in the power structure. But the other side of that is continued disenfranchisement of people like me who never feel represented. I think these extreme parties rise to prominence due to low voter turnout out of complacency. A good solution to that is mandatory voting like in Australia. Whatever the solution, clearly direct democracy is not it. Too easy to manipulate, to easy to lose the benefit of deliberation and compromise when complex issues get reduced to a binary choice. Democracy is slow and plodding and that’s a feature, not a bug.
Another very viable option
A better solution that any kind of electoral solution is random selection. See my post above.
Alberta Conservative politics started going wonky with the first 3 way leadership runoff in 2005. Now the party is dominated by angry anti-vaxxers who have become angry separatists. The UCP is breaking up and the NDP will win the next election.
I think this misses the mark, somewhat. In general, I oppose direct democracy because I think it yields inferior policy results to representative democracy.
When it comes to changes to the fundamental governance structures of a society, however, the case changes. In that situation, the members of a polity should be allowed a greater degree of direct control. On the other hand, if we're throwing representative democracy out for a question, we shouldn't assume that the rules around elections for representative democracy continue to apply unchanged.
For example, direct democracy seems to require specific proposals. A referendum on the Charlestown Accord for example is a concrete proposal that voters can give a Yes/No answer to. In the context of an independence referendum, I don't think it makes sense to treat it as meaningful unless it is a direct Yes/No on the fully spelled out proposal - after negotiating the legal text of required legislation and agreements with Canada, aboriginal groups, and anyone else with whom negotiations are necessary. A vote to separate is meaningless when separated from a concrete, specific proposal to separate. If it's a general mandate to do something, and the elected officials will be tasked with filling in the details, the usual representative democracy process is fine.
So for example, the Parti Quebecois could hold an independence referendum after negotiating a separation from Canada, to determine whether there was genuine public support for the separation, but one held before negotiations should be considered purely advisory. It's forcing voters to select yes/no, with no clarity about what either answer means, and where a supermajority of voters would ultimately say 'it depends' - they're just not given that opportunity. The ambiguity inherent in that approach means that by definition the result doesn't have democratic legitimacy for anything in particular. We shouldn't pretend that it does.
In pushing for representative democracy, please use your platform to push proportional representation.
With proportional representation separatists in Alberta would be sectioned into their own rump party and held to real scrutiny in a legislature not beholding to them.
Picking your electoral system based on "I want those people silenced and this will shut them up" isn't a good sign.
Not as a generalization, but the problem is when you have "those people" who clearly aren't representative of the population having the leverage to influence government.
The best way the ensure that a body is representative is to select it by random selection according to the principles of basic statistics. See my post above.
I'm in BC, but it seems to me that it's been obvious for a LONG time that the UCP was strongly influenced and to some extent controlled by what some might wish to call the "fringe" of the Albertan political perspective.
And if it's been obvious to me, then it should have been obvious to the median Albertan voter. If you voted UCP and are surprised that "those people" have leverage on the government... well I don't know what to say. It's like voting for the federal Conservatives and being surprised that the people who want to shutdown the CBC have a lot of influence.
As for random selection, there's no reason to take that idea seriously. You're not talking about democracy at that point or even expertise.
I too was generalizing. I live in Ontario.
And it may interest you to know that random selection is what was practiced by the Athenians a few centuries BC. You know, where democracy (a Greek word) was invented (as far as we know). And Aristotle asserted that it was common knowledge that random selection (he used the Greek word for lot, I think) produced democracy and elections produced oligarchy.
As for expertise, there's a great deal empirical evidence that shows that a sufficient number of non-experts can arrive at a better solution that just a few "experts". See books by Helene Landemore or search "the wisdom of crowds".
As if any but a few parliamentarians of any age have been experts, and yet we treat them as if they are. Nowadays they're more like trained seals who won a beauty contest. We can do better with random people, at the very least because they won't have anybody to kowtow to for getting them elected or any ability to influence their re-election.
Random people take jury duty seriously (I've served). They'd do the same if given the chance at parliament.
This isn't theoretical concept, it's being used in various places around the world. Look up "sortition". There's lots to read about it.
If Pierre Poilivere beings demanding electoral reform he will save his leadership and most likely, the party.
Well said. I used to be in favour of “one member, one vote” leadership campaigns, recall and citizen initiative, but I have seen how those processes are used by small groups of partisans or ideologues to further their own agenda. I would like to see a return of the strong parties that exercise political hygiene within their parties instead of the weak parties we have now that are easily taken over by the motivated extremists or personality cultists.
When politicians are elected, the only mandate they've actually got is to hold that office for 4-5 years until the next election. At that point voters get to decide whether they're happy with that politician's performance, or whether to toss them out and elect somebody else instead. That's it. If you ask 1000 voters why they voted for a specific candidate, you'll get 1000 different reasons, and really only a fog of consensus that might be construed as a mandate for something specific.
Referendums and direct democracy superficially appear to deliver a more definitive mandate, but reality shows that they're just as imprecise and subject to a similar fog of interpretations and rationales. The "Leave" side eked out a slight majority in the Brexit referendum, but promised all sorts of benefits that never materialized. Would they still have won if voters knew that they couldn't deliver?
Even worse are referendum questions that are vague or imprecise, like Quebec's 1995 referendum question "Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?" Jacques Parizeau was going to treat a "Yes" vote as justification for immediate, unilateral secession. That's not how a lot of people were reading it.
So how do politicians know what the limits are when they're elected? Well, for one thing there's the law and the Constitution. For another, they usually only represent one level of government - they don't necessarily have an exclusive say in the matter. In the end, though, they can do it if they dare. The voters will get their say in the next election, and the Constitution guarantees there WILL be a next election.
An overdue article in the midst of a chaotic time with an excellent explanation of what this referendum is and what it isn't. I would add 2 things. Our legislature meets 34 days this year . There is very little debate , orders in council are how we are being ruled by non- elected officials. There is a move to replace the importance of elected MLAs by the "direct" democracy . The cost is outrageous with a missing component - the province is spending 4 million to plead their case whereas there are no matching funds to support the NO side - just private funds.
A substantial number of Albertans of many political stripes, are not satisfied that successive federal governments have served their interests. History since the mid-1960s has repeatedly demonstrated that Alberta votes simply don't matter in federal elections and representative democracy has not delivered what many Albertans want and (I suspect) see other Provinces getting. "Representative democracy' can deliver even handed, responsible government but there's considerable evidence it listens to and rewards its supporters. Representative democracy rewards "voter efficency" and continues to permit Party's to hold office with a minority of the "popular vote" and parties with a majority of the voters support to serve in Opposition.
This frustration helps explain Alberta's resort to direct democracy. Quebec has used it and the threat of direct democracy, quite effectively over the last several decades. Perhaps it's coincidence, a function of Trump, the price of oil or where the PM was born, but this federal government has been more attentive and supportive of Alberta's ambitions following the Province's resort to direct democracy.
I agree with direct democracy being mostly unworkable and in this case highly impractical except for the fact that all government parties never seem to purge their own ranks of people that in the past would have been forced to resign. If my MLA is acting like a Canadian Senator being invisible in their riding or caught in flagrante delicto there needs to be a mechanism for their removal.
There is a mechanism. It's called an election.
While I get the arguments Jared and Ken are making about this specific Alberta referendum, I disagree with their wider point that direct democracy in Alberta and Canada are a failure.
Direct democracy actually has a history in Alberta. There used to be an understanding of the distinction between a plebiscite (which is a non-binding citizen direct vote, the results of which allows a sitting government to gauge citizen opinion on a topic) and a referendum (which until recently was a binding citizen direct vote on a subject that obligated a sitting government to act on the results). Today, for some reason, we have this strange concept of a 'non-binding referendum' which should more correctly be termed a plebiscite.
I completely agree that the current practice of the sitting government cooking up the wording of the questions, whether they be citizen-originated or from the government itself, has been a disaster - hopelessly politicizing specific yet complex issues with questions that lean the voter to the preferred outcome of the government in power.
I also agree that the bar should be high for a citizen-initiated direct democracy questions. I disagree that citizens should not have the ability to initiate a question. Yes, the required signatures should be a high number, and the question citizens are seeking to have answered should pass legal muster before it is put to a provincial vote, but the process should still exist.
I am less enthused about continuing the current practice of questions cooked up by the government themselves. The current glob of loaded questions is adequately covered by the article, and I largely concur with Ken and Jared's analysis.
The 2026 loaded questions, however, have a fairly recent precedent in this UCP government chicanery in so-called direct democracy. The 2021 referendum on permanent DST is a great example of a government loading their question to favour their preferred outcome. The vote yielded an extremely narrow 'no' to year-round DST, disappointing the UCP (and those that wanted year-round DST to happen). Voters opposed to full-time DST had only one option, and that was the status quo of continuing the twice yearly time change, because the *actual preferred option* of 'no' voters was to do away with DST altogether, and return us to the pre-1971 practice of full time Mountain Standard Time. This option, of course, was quite intentionally not included in the 2021 referendum question.
The government's response to the 2021 DST vote has been to ram through permanent DST without the messiness of creating a new referendum question. This top-down government-knows-best approach would appear to be Jared and Ken's preferred option; I personally would have appreciated a referendum question that provided three options: permanent DST, permanent MST, or no change. It will remain to be seen if, as other jurisdictions historically have learned, that full time DST is not the great thing it was thought to be (look it up, it's interesting).
To wrap this comment up - I think there is still a place for direct democracy in Alberta, but the process needs a complete rethink. It should be an all-party committee that reviews any question, and this committee should not be weighted in favour of the sitting government. The review committee should also have independent legal analysis, and of course indigenous review where appropriate constitutionally. There should be a clear distinction (and perhaps public and MLA education) on the difference between a plebiscite (non-binding) and a referendum (binding). It can work, as it has worked elsewhere in the world; we just need to adopt better practices.
I do find it ironic that the only measure adopted from this 7 year mess of direct democracy (plebiscite is the correct term) is the one on DST defeated at the polls during Kenney's regime? And yes permanent MST should have been an option.
I recall from very early in my childhood that questions on DST and water fluoridation seemed to show up as plebiscites at every tri-annual municipal election.
Limited use of citizen sponsored plebiscites on such issues, makes sense, the idea that enough (small group of) people sign a petition we can have a vote to call Tuesday Thursday is insane!
"Modern government also requires expertise and informed deliberation. It is simply not possible for a single individual, never mind every voter, to know the intricacies of subjects like cybersecurity regulation and monetary policy, let alone the interaction between these things. We need those same legislators, bureaucrats and semi-governmental bodies to dedicate their careers to not just understanding the nuances of complex issues, but also deciding which issues need attention right now."
This column and more is exactly what a lot of people need to read.
Representative democracy means representatives doing what the people would do if they had sufficient information, time, ability and inclination to do so. And a major part of finding out what that should be is discussing and deliberating with their colleagues.
"They aren’t just delegates of their base; they are trustees of the broader public good."
Exactly! Edmund Burke wrote in 1774: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
"... if you’re trying to build a credible political party."
The thing is, such a thing doesn't seem to be possible. How many years and elections have to pass before we stop the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting better results?
The real change that is needed is to replace elections with using a lottery to decide who gets to represent us. Because voting doesn’t make a democracy - representation does! And if you want a statistically representative sample of a population, you take a random sample of a sufficient size to satisfy a desired confidence level and margin of error. This is basic statistics. And getting a representative sample is the whole point of elections, right?
This is the concrete solution to the problem of party politics and the beauty pageant elections that sustains it.
The problem is that these "popular assemblies" exist in a cocoon of permanent civil servants who select "experts" to "help" the representatives in their "deliberation". Control of the information feed to representatives leads to control of the output. GIGO
Clearly a working popular assembly should be free to choose whomever it wants to assist in their information gathering.